04-14-2011, 01:44 PM
[quote name='jjalbs' timestamp='1302783531' post='7637']
Hi
My first post here so hope it is in the right place. I am looking for some advice on lenses to purchase. I am in the process of updating some of my gear and having a tough time deciding. I just upgraded to the Canon 7D and also have an old XTi as a second body. I will probably be sticking with the cropped bodies for the foreseeable future. I currently have the Canon 10-22, 28-135 kit lens, and 50mm 1.4. I am mostly into nature/landscape photography but I also do some portraits and the occasional wedding through referrals from friends. I have also have become interested in wildlife photography and birds. Here is a list of lenses I have been considering. My budget right now is about $2500.
Canon 17-55 2.8
Canon 15-85
Canon 70-200 f4
Canon 70-200 f2.8 II
Canon 100-400
Canon 300 f4
Canon 17 ts-e
Obviously if I go with the 70-200 f2.8 or the 17mm ts-e that is all I can afford right now. I can pair most of the other lenses with either of the wide zooms.
So what does every one think have for suggestions. I am interested in everyones 2 cents?
Anything else I should consider?
Thanks
[/quote]
Summarizing, you want to do nature, landscape, portraits, wedding, wildlife and birds, alll of this on one or more crop bodies.
Personally, for landscapes I use anything from UW to long tele, with most shots in the 17-135 FL range, on FF, IOW, that would be about 10 to 85 on APS-C. However, personally I use primes for this type of work, rather than zoooms, but that is probably besides the point.
Nature, if you want to include macro here, I have gone from a macro setup to using extension tubes and a few good primes, except for larger than life macro, for which I use a dedicated macro lens (M-PE 65). In short with the above mentioned setup and a few macro extension tubes this'll work fine.
For wildlife and birds there is really only one option in your list, and that is the 100-400L. Personally, I also use this for candids, macro with a Canon 500D achromatic close-up lens (goes to 1:1 at 400 mm) and landscapes as well, not just nature, wildlife and birds - it is the only zoom lens left in my own arsenal.
For portraits I use anything that comes in handy for what I'd want to achieve, depending on the type of portrait, essentially from about 28 to 400 mm, on APS-C that would be about 17 to 250 mm, and for weddings I generally use 24/28 to about 135 mm, and occasionally 200 mm comes in handy. In terms of APS-C that is 15/18 to 85, up to 125 occasionally.
Combining all this, I'd suggest you'd get something from 10-400 mm to cover all of this, IOW, 10-22, 15-85, and 100-400. This means you could sell the 28-135, and that might just give you enough to get both of those lenses. I would keep the 50 F/1.4 for portraiture and low light shots.
Can one do better than this? Yes, but not within this budget. You will have very good lenses for what you'd want to achieve, in all of those areas, and from this you could build things up further.
However, as an alternative to the 15-85 you could consider the 17-55 F/2.8, or even a 24-70 F/2.8L, but in that case something else will likely have to give (other than the 15-85, which it would replace). Even on APS-C, 24-70 is a great zoom for wedding photography and portraiture, especially since you already have the 10-22 anyway.
I think you really need to consider very carefully what you find more important in the near future, wildlife or weddings, because here is the real budget breaker IMO. Good quality lenses for weddings and portraiture don't really overlap that well with good quality wildlife and birding lenses. As to the TS-E 17: personally I would really only consider that with a FF camera, as you lose out too much by using it with an APS-C camera IMO.
In short, trying to combine everything in your list, I'd opt for 10-22, 24-70 or 17-55 or 15-85, 100-400 and the 50 F/1.4, maybe with a few extension tubes thrown in. If you don't mind shooting with primes, you could also consider the 28 F/1.8 and 85 F/1.8 in combination with the 50 F/1.4 for wedding and portraiture work, for the mainstay of shots. In that case, the setup would become 10-22, 28, 50, 85, 100-400.
If you think you'd want to go for wedding/portraiture first, and wildlife/birding later, or vice versa, rather than trying to do all simultaneously, let us know, because recommendations would become rather different.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
Hi
My first post here so hope it is in the right place. I am looking for some advice on lenses to purchase. I am in the process of updating some of my gear and having a tough time deciding. I just upgraded to the Canon 7D and also have an old XTi as a second body. I will probably be sticking with the cropped bodies for the foreseeable future. I currently have the Canon 10-22, 28-135 kit lens, and 50mm 1.4. I am mostly into nature/landscape photography but I also do some portraits and the occasional wedding through referrals from friends. I have also have become interested in wildlife photography and birds. Here is a list of lenses I have been considering. My budget right now is about $2500.
Canon 17-55 2.8
Canon 15-85
Canon 70-200 f4
Canon 70-200 f2.8 II
Canon 100-400
Canon 300 f4
Canon 17 ts-e
Obviously if I go with the 70-200 f2.8 or the 17mm ts-e that is all I can afford right now. I can pair most of the other lenses with either of the wide zooms.
So what does every one think have for suggestions. I am interested in everyones 2 cents?
Anything else I should consider?
Thanks
[/quote]
Summarizing, you want to do nature, landscape, portraits, wedding, wildlife and birds, alll of this on one or more crop bodies.
Personally, for landscapes I use anything from UW to long tele, with most shots in the 17-135 FL range, on FF, IOW, that would be about 10 to 85 on APS-C. However, personally I use primes for this type of work, rather than zoooms, but that is probably besides the point.
Nature, if you want to include macro here, I have gone from a macro setup to using extension tubes and a few good primes, except for larger than life macro, for which I use a dedicated macro lens (M-PE 65). In short with the above mentioned setup and a few macro extension tubes this'll work fine.
For wildlife and birds there is really only one option in your list, and that is the 100-400L. Personally, I also use this for candids, macro with a Canon 500D achromatic close-up lens (goes to 1:1 at 400 mm) and landscapes as well, not just nature, wildlife and birds - it is the only zoom lens left in my own arsenal.
For portraits I use anything that comes in handy for what I'd want to achieve, depending on the type of portrait, essentially from about 28 to 400 mm, on APS-C that would be about 17 to 250 mm, and for weddings I generally use 24/28 to about 135 mm, and occasionally 200 mm comes in handy. In terms of APS-C that is 15/18 to 85, up to 125 occasionally.
Combining all this, I'd suggest you'd get something from 10-400 mm to cover all of this, IOW, 10-22, 15-85, and 100-400. This means you could sell the 28-135, and that might just give you enough to get both of those lenses. I would keep the 50 F/1.4 for portraiture and low light shots.
Can one do better than this? Yes, but not within this budget. You will have very good lenses for what you'd want to achieve, in all of those areas, and from this you could build things up further.
However, as an alternative to the 15-85 you could consider the 17-55 F/2.8, or even a 24-70 F/2.8L, but in that case something else will likely have to give (other than the 15-85, which it would replace). Even on APS-C, 24-70 is a great zoom for wedding photography and portraiture, especially since you already have the 10-22 anyway.
I think you really need to consider very carefully what you find more important in the near future, wildlife or weddings, because here is the real budget breaker IMO. Good quality lenses for weddings and portraiture don't really overlap that well with good quality wildlife and birding lenses. As to the TS-E 17: personally I would really only consider that with a FF camera, as you lose out too much by using it with an APS-C camera IMO.
In short, trying to combine everything in your list, I'd opt for 10-22, 24-70 or 17-55 or 15-85, 100-400 and the 50 F/1.4, maybe with a few extension tubes thrown in. If you don't mind shooting with primes, you could also consider the 28 F/1.8 and 85 F/1.8 in combination with the 50 F/1.4 for wedding and portraiture work, for the mainstay of shots. In that case, the setup would become 10-22, 28, 50, 85, 100-400.
If you think you'd want to go for wedding/portraiture first, and wildlife/birding later, or vice versa, rather than trying to do all simultaneously, let us know, because recommendations would become rather different.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
